The DFL's Shameful Play for Attention in the Most Important Election of Our Generation

As I'm sure many of you have heard, the DFL in Minnesota has filed a lawsuit with the Secretary of State to force them to remove Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his vice-presidential running mate Mike Pence from the ballot in November of this year.

It would be simple to write a book about the boring legal reasons why the DFL believes Trump shouldn't be on the ballot, but I'm smart enough to know it's a book no one would read.

Regardless of whether you're a Trump fan or not, Trump isn't going to get taken off the ballot. (Sorry to wreck some of your hopes, it's just not going to happen.)

So if it's a lawsuit they know they're not going to win, why do it? There are two main reasons the DFL is filing this lawsuit: 1. To get media attention (Something the DFL is VERY good at; the day they filed the lawsuit they were on the main page of Politico and several other news sources.) and 2. To waste MNGOP money and attention on fighting a lawsuit while the DFL uses their vast union resources to win a majority in the House and Senate in Minnesota. 

You know the best way to win Republican majority in the Senate and keep the majority in the House? Ignore the DFL's dishonest ways, and keep them on an even playing field.  Donate/volunteer for our many great Republican candidates! We can win a majority in November!

Just a few of my favorites right here!

Max Rymer HD 49B: http://maxforhouse.com/
Speaker Kurt Daudt HD 31A: http://kurtdaudt.com/
Stewart Mills 8th Congressional District: http://www.stewartmills.com/
Chad Anderson HD 50B: http://chadforhouse.com/

How the Gas Tax Exacerbates Poverty, Racism, and Less Freedom

Turning 16 years old is one of the most-beloved milestones of an American teenager. Being 16 meant getting your driver's license, which meant eventually getting a car, which meant freedom.

Freedom is something we all want, isn't it? If you asked 100 random Minnesotans if they wanted more or less freedom, I think you would be hard-pressed to find one that said they wanted less.

Well what if I told you that Governor Dayton's proposed gas tax meant that you and your descendants (children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.) would likely not own a mode of transportation at all?

In 2015, Governor Dayton announced that he wanted to raise the gas tax by at least 16¢ a gallon (the gas tax gets higher per gallon as wholesale gas prices get higher. At $4 a gallon, the gas tax would be 22¢ per gallon.) The federal gas tax is already 18.4¢ per gallon. Add this with Minnesota's 28.5¢ per gallon gas tax, and you're looking at 47¢ per gallon before the gas tax hike. If the gas tax passes, this means that you will be paying at least 63¢ per gallon just in taxes.

To put this into perspective, if you were to fill up your 26 gallon tank in your 2010 Chevy Silverado at the cheapest place to get gas in MNtoday ($1.77/gal at Costco) with the current gas tax, you would pay $46.02. If Governor Dayton's gas tax passes, you would actually end up paying $50.18.

Now you may be thinking, "Well, Nick, $4 each time I fill up my gas tank is not that big of a deal, because Minnesota needs better roads, anyway!" Well....you'd be wrong on two accounts.

First off, if you're like 41% of Americans, you're filling up your gas tank once a week. $4 x 52 weeks equals an extra $204 you weren't paying before. If you're like 19% of Americans and filling up your gas tank twice a week, you're paying an extra $408 a year. Now, many people may be able to cut down on expenses like that Starbucks you love, or not take your kid on that trip to the water park. But why should you have to? This is America, shouldn't you be able to spend your own money how YOU want? If you're one of11.4% of Minnesotans that is considered below the poverty line, you're not going to be able to afford the couple extra hundred dollars, and you're going to be stuck without a way to get to work, a way to be able to bring your kids to school, and a way to enjoy the basic freedom that every American has the right to - the freedom to move about freely. This means that many racial minorities (who are 30% more likely to be below the poverty line than whiteMinnesotans) will be even more marginalized and discriminated against than they were before.

Secondly, Governor Dayton's gas tax (gasp here) won't go towards fixing Minnesota's roads. In 2015, Minnesota had a $1.87 billion surplus. If you were Governor of Minnesota, what would you do with an extra $1.87 billion? You'd probably want to fix the roads, and then use the rest to give you and all your neighbors a hefty tax break! If we used half of the surplus to fix Minnesota roads and bridges, and then divided the rest of it up among all of Minnesota's residents, each person would get $171.33. Think of all the things you could do with that money!

Well, too bad you're not the governor.

Governor Mark Dayton intends to do some fixing of roads and bridges, sure, but much of the new taxes (Oh yes, there is more than just the gas tax.) will go towards the Southwest light-rail line going from Eden Prairieto Minneapolis. In 2013, it was estimated that Eden Prairie had 62,603 people living within its borders. So in summary, Governor Dayton wants to spend $2 billion on a light rail to a city that only has a little more than 60,000 people. There goes your tax return!

But there is a hidden motive behind the gas tax, one that progressives have been using for decades. It has been found in study after study that if a country or state increases the gas tax, people won't buy a car. And if people don't buy cars, there's less pollution, and less incentive to fix the roads for the future. In a study done by Heritage.org, severalmacroeconomists found that for every one percentage increase in the gas tax,there would be 0.86% less demand for modes of transportation. This means that using the numbers above, there's 470,850 people who will give up using their personal mode of transportation and will no longer have any way to get around their community, state, and nation. That is 70,000 more people than the entire population of Minneapolis.

Are we honestly going to be an accomplice in taking cars from 470,000 people who won't be able to afford the Governor's gas tax? Or are we going to speak up and help protect Minnesotan's right to use their money and vehicles how they want to?

To oppose the gas tax, find your state senator here, call them, and tell them you oppose the gas tax for a better Minnesota, the way it should be.

To get more involved with the fight against the gas tax, shoot me an email at: nsolheim@afphq.org

My Problem with Bernie Sanders

I have a great friend here at my college who's a big fan of Bernie Sanders. For writing this post, I have to apologize to him. I'm sorry, Graham.

Here's my big problem with Bernie Sanders: Despite saying he's not a "one-issue candidate", he totally is. 

Bernie Sanders wants everyone to be equal. 

In theory that sounds great! Awesome! I get treated with the same amount of respect as a millionaire businessman (which shouldn't be dictated by the government anyway), but not only that, I'll have the same amount of money as a millionaire businessman! 

Wait, what?

That's right, Bernie loves this thing called "Redistribution of Wealth." Basically, we all get around the same amount of paycheck, and get taxed according to the amount of money that we would make if we weren't getting taxed anywhere from 25-75%. Bummer.

Not only that, but this would increase the size of an already bloated government, which means...

Yay! Even more taxes! 

Quite possibly one of my biggest issues with Bernie Sanders economic plan is not that he wants to help people (Side note: Bernie is an admirable man, and I admire his integrity over any other candidate,) my problem lies with how he wants to pay for it all. 

He wants to impose a tax on Wall Street speculation, which would make the American government billions, possibly trillions of dollars! The problem here is, if you put a tax on speculation, no one will speculate. Speculation is an essential part of the stock market on Wall Street, and its taxation could potentially cause a market collapse even worse than the Great Depression! 

He wants to force companies to increase their minimum wage from $7.25 (or $9 in my home state of Minnesota), to $15 an hour by 2020. The problem with this is that it goes against the mixed economy system the United States currently has, which leans far more capitalistic than it does socialist. Demanding that family businesses as well as large corporations pay their part-time employees more than double what federal minimum wage laws mandate now would ruin many family-run businesses, and put many mid-size businesses at risk of going out of business. The only companies that could afford such a wage hike are the big corporations that Bernie is attempting to break up! 

He wants to mandate that women and men get paid the same amount for the doing the same job. While I agree that women should get paid the same as men, both genders need to have the same qualifications to get paid the same amount. Also, it is not the government's place to mandate how much a company pays their employees, or how many they employ, or what gender, sex, race, or sexual orientation they are. Again, this goes against the free-market system that we (mostly) have. 

The one thing that I will slightly agree with Bernie on is the free public universities idea. However it should not be paid for with new taxes. I would much rather my tax money be spent on sending some highly-qualified students (I don't want to pay for lazy kids to go to college) to school than reckless overspending on the military or wasting money on all these stupid things the U.S. Government spent money on, listed here. 

The #1 thing I can't stand about Bernie Sanders is his supporters. Most of them are politically illiterate college-age students (Not you Graham, of course. Seriously, you're the smartest dude I know.) who only want to support him because "free college" and "equality". 

In summary, while I think Bernie Sanders is a great guy and has a great heart, I think he needs to concentrate his efforts on private fundraising and giving to the poor, because he obviously excels at galvanizing donors!

Ben Carson is Wrong About Calling Muslim-Americans "Schizophrenic" for Embracing American Values

Ben Carson has outdone himself this time. When asked about Muslim-Americans who practice sharia law and also believe in American democracy in an interview with the conservative news service Breitbart, presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson said, "Only if they're schizophrenic. I don't see how they can do it otherwise, because you have two different philosophies.

The problem with this is that by saying this, Ben Carson is alienating a whole religion of people who align almost perfectly with conservative ideals and the Republican cause.

Think about the things Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all against. Gay marriage, abortions, legalization of drugs, etc. Believe it or not, before the Muslim-hating bandwagon got rolling in 2001, most Muslims were Republicans, or shared their conservative values!

A Pew Research poll done in 2015 found that there were 3.3 million Muslims living in America, which comprises about 1% of the population. Imagine what politicians could do with a whole percentage point of support! Most elections come within at least 10% (though often closer to 5%), so every single person counts!

If Republicans want to start winning in America, they need to galvanize the Muslim population into becoming politically active. This can only happen if Republicans show Muslims the same respect they show evangelical Christians.

Ben Carson is the wrong person to do that.

Debates No Longer Matter

Anyone who watching the debate in South Carolina on Saturday night knows that it was a tough night for The Donald. He was booed by the audience multiple times, got steamrolled by Jeb(!), Rubio, and (debatable) Cruz.

But debates no longer matter in the race for the presidential nomination in the Republican Party.

If we voted for people by debate performance, Marco Rubio would be on top, most likely followed by Ted Cruz, and (arguably) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. If debates actually influenced voters at all, Trump would be the one that dropped out, and Fiorina, Christie, Paul, and Graham might still be in the race.

Instead, the debates have turned into a poop-slinging contest between the candidates like howler monkeys.

Ouch.

There's no longer any point to hosting the debates. It just gives the Democrats (who have had wonderful and engaging debates) more and more traction with voters, who see Republicans as the bully that steals your lunch money on the playground.

Granted, this isn't all Republicans. Ohio Governor John Kasich has prided himself on staying above the insults (which he has mostly done), and no one is more famous for his calm demeanor than retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson.

The Republican candidates have turned their (mostly) hawkish foreign policy ideas into a hawkish debate strategy, and it will end up hurting their bids for the Presidency far more than any of them can imagine.

If the WWE Smackdown between the candidates doesn't stop soon, I feel almost as if we will have a Democratic President for 2016.

Bummer.

The Establishment is Done for 2016

With the primary results finished for New Hampshire, it's obvious that 2016 is the year of the anti-establishment.

With Donald Trump taking second in Iowa, and first in New Hampshire by almost 20 percentage points, he seems to be an unstoppable force in the Republican race for the presidential nomination. Even if Trump doesn't win the nomination, Ted Cruz, the next most likely nominee, is one of the most hated by Republicans in Congress.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, who was the expected favorite to win, is withering under the enigmatic campaign of Bernie Sanders. Who ever thought we would see the day when a Democratic Socialist would beat a member of the Clinton dynasty? She "won" (Coin flips? Seriously?) Iowa by 0.29%, and lost in a landslide in New Hampshire.

Businessman Donald Trump and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the two front-runners in the 2016 race. 

So is this the end of the establishment?

Well, not entirely. But this year, maybe.

The top establishment candidate who won in Iowa was Marco Rubio, and he placed third behind Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. In New Hampshire, Rubio placed fifth, with Trump gaining the top spot.

It looks more and more like we're going to have a Trump vs. Sanders race, and the establishment in both parties couldn't be more afraid.

What's the future for the establishment Republicans and Democrats? Maybe some lofty paid speeches? (I'm looking at you, Hillary.) Only the voters can tell, and this year, it looks like they've made their choice.

Why Ted Cruz is Wrong About Bombing ISIS Until "Sand Glows in the Dark"

Of all the Republican candidates for president, Senator Ted Cruz has taken one of the most hard-line stances against ISIS on the stage. When speaking on his plan to eradicate ISIS (which is also known as ISIL, or Daesh), Senator Cruz commented that: "We will carpet-bomb them into oblivion. I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out!"

Texas Senator Ted Cruz

The problem with this line of thought is that ISIS frequently hides among the civilian population, and by "making the sand glow", we risk killing far more civilians than Islamic militants. 

Back in June of 2015, this phenomenon was documented by CNN when ISIS caliphate leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was reportedly hiding among civilians before his death by Iraqi bombing run (which still has yet to be confirmed.)

Current President Barack Obama has taken to using unmanned drones to kill ISIS operatives and destroy their caliphate. The issue with this is that these drone runs kill civilians 90% of the time. 

Imagine if a presidential candidate of a strong, foreign nation (think China, Russia, etc.) had a presidential candidate planning on bombing us until our perfectly-manicured grass turned purple, we would be scared too. 

Senator Cruz, if you are advocating the death of thousands, or maybe millions of Middle Easterners, you sincerely need to rethink your priorities. 

Why Chris Christie Won the Debate, But Won't Win the Race

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had a stellar debate performance last night, probably his best so far. He mainly attacked Florida Senator Marco Rubio, but didn't pull punches for anyone else on the stage besides Donald Trump. With every attack, he got cheers, whoops, and yells, but here's why he won't win the votes necessary to win the election, or even New Hampshire: Governor Christie is pure entertainment.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

We all know everyone loves a good fight on stage, and that's the only reason Chris Christie was getting cheered on last night. But look at the polls in a few days, his numbers won't go up more than 5%, because he's just a good person to put all the Republicans in their places, but he won't win the race.

I know we all said the same thing about Donald Trump (Or as a good friend of mine likes to call him, Tronald Dump) a few months ago, but that didn't work out. He was able to take the anger and rage of the people and turn it into support. Chris Christie won't be able to do that for two reasons: 1. Trump's already galvanized the angry voters, and 2. He's brought on his bombastic tactics too late in the game. Sure, he has been tough and loud before, but he's never had such a showing as he did last night.

Long story short, I love Governor Christie and think he's a great guy, but he should have started "Telling It Like It Is" awhile ago.

Why Congress Shouldn't Get Involved with Hillary Clinton

We've all seen the news headlines: "How Did 'Top Secret' Emails End Up on Hillary Clinton's Server", "Hillary Clinton's Ticking Time Bomb", and "Congress Preparing Investigation Into Clinton."What did Hillary Clinton do that made everyone want to tear her life apart?


She emailed.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Yes, she used a private email server. Yes, that is illegal according to 18 USC §1924 which states: "Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."


So how did she break the law?


Well, by using a personal email server to email what has now been revealed to contain several emails that have been classified as "Top Secret" since her time as Secretary of State, she violated this law.


However, when Congress gets involved in the process of prosecuting Clinton, it gets too political. Both sides call out in the news media, accusing each other of being partisan, especially with Clinton seeking the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.


Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has urged many of his Republican colleagues to defer to the FBI for the investigation, and he is 100% correct to do so.


It has become difficult for many people to distinguish between the investigation into the events of Benghazi and the part Clinton played in that, and her email scandal. Because her actions as Secretary of State caused the deaths of CIA contractors, she has been investigated by the Select Committee on Benghazi.


However, her emails fall under FBI investigation. When former Director of the CIA David Petraeus was caught passing on classified information to his lover via notebooks, his entire investigation was handled by the FBI. He was given his sentence, and the trial reached a much quicker conclusion than it would have if politics had been involved.


The Speaker is right, let the FBI do their jobs, and keep the politics out of criminal investigation.